Sources: Ethics panel holds meeting on Fresolo

Thursday

May 16, 2013 at 6:00 AMMay 16, 2013 at 6:40 AM

By John J. Monahan TELEGRAM & GAZETTE STAFF

The House Ethics Committee, which is believed to be investigating complaints against state Rep John P. Fresolo, D-Worcester, met for three hours Wednesday in a guarded conference room at the Statehouse that was closed to the public.

Committee members filed out of the room about 7 p.m., but said they were bound by committee rules not to disclose the subject of the meeting or make any statements.

Defense lawyer Thomas R. Kiley, known for defending political figures facing allegations of wrongdoing, also attended, but said everything before the committee “is secret” and he did not comment on the proceedings or identify his client.

The Telegram & Gazette learned from sources that among a number of witnesses called to testify before the committee over the next three days is state Rep. John J. Binienda, D-Worcester, who in past years shared rides to the Statehouse with Mr. Fresolo. Two other members of the House have also been called to testify, along with witnesses with no obvious connection to the Statehouse, according to sources.

While there has been widespread speculation about the nature of the ethics allegations involved in the case, House officials have not made any public comment. However, it has been learned that the investigation involves multiple allegations of ethical breaches, including Mr. Fresolo's per diem travel expenses.

House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo, D-Winthrop, in March reported that he had directed the Ethics Committee to undertake a full investigation into “serious allegations” of misconduct by a House member brought to his attention by a member of the Statehouse legislative staff.

Shortly after Mr. DeLeo ordered the investigation, Mr. Fresolo said he would not discuss whether he was the legislator under investigation and said that his lawyer had advised him not to make any public statements. Mr. Fresolo also told reporters that, contrary to some reports, he was not going to resign.

The lack of specifics on the allegations has given rise to speculation, but the speaker's office has maintained that rules governing Ethics Committee investigations require the allegations not be made public at this stage of the investigation.

The speaker, however, reported earlier that the allegations were made against the lawmaker by a House employee in early March and that he directed House counsel at that time to undertake a preliminary investigation to determine if they had merit. That review concluded that there was sufficient cause to warrant a full investigation by the Ethics Committee.

The 11-member Ethics Committee operates largely outside of public view, under specific rules that require all proceedings, including the filing of an initial complaint, be treated as “confidential information.”

The rules require that allegations be filed with the committee in the form of sworn written complaints and that the committee notify any person named and the nature of the alleged ethical violation, provide them with a list of prospective witnesses and afford the target of the investigation an opportunity to appear before the committee represented by a lawyer.

If the allegations are deemed to have merit by a majority vote of the committee, the committee must file a report with the clerk of the House. At that point the report becomes a public document.

If allegations are deemed unfounded or without merit, the committee is prohibited from disclosing the nature of the allegation and no conclusive reports are filed.

In cases where the committee finds violations of House Ethics rules, it can recommend a reprimand, censure, removal from leadership positions or even expulsion from the House, for consideration by the full 160-member House of Representatives.